Leonard Pitts Jr.: Obama off base on drugs

If President Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. So the president famously said.

And the president’s son would thereby find himself at significantly greater risk of running afoul of the so-called “War on Drugs” than, say, a son of George W. Bush. Depending on what state he lived in, a Trayvon Obama might be 57 times more likely than a Trayvon Bush to be imprisoned on drug charges.

This is not because he would be 57 times more likely to commit a drug crime. To the contrary, white American men commit the vast majority of the nation’s drug crimes, but African-American men do the vast majority of the nation’s drug time. It is a nakedly racial disparity that should leave the U.S. Department of “Justice” embarrassed to call itself by that name.

So it is difficult to be anything but disappointed at President Obama’s recent declaration at a summit in Colombia that “legalization is not the answer” to the international drug problem. The president argued that drug dealers might come to “dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint.” This dominance, he said, “could be just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.”

One wonders if the president forgot to engage brain before operating mouth.

Dealers might “dominate certain countries”? Has Obama never heard of Mexico, that country on our southern border where drug dealers operate as a virtual shadow government in some areas? Is he unfamiliar with Colombia — his host nation — where, for years, the government battled a drug cartel brutal and brazen enough to attack the Supreme Court and assassinate the attorney general? That scenario Obama warns against actually came to pass a long time ago.

Similarly, it is a mystery how the manufacture and sale of a legal product could be “just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.” How could that be, given that there would no longer be a need for drug merchants to bribe judges, politicians and police for protection? What reason is there to believe a legal market in drugs would be any more prone to corruption than the legal markets in cigarettes and alcohol? Or, popcorn and chocolate?

The president’s reasoning is about as sturdy as a cardboard box in a monsoon. Even he must know — who can still deny? — that the drug war has failed. When it comes to quantifying that failure, several numbers are stark and edifying:

■ 41. That’s how many years the “War” has raged.

■ 40 million-plus. That’s how many Americans have been arrested.

■ 1 trillion-plus. That’s the cost.

■ 2,800. That’s the percentage by which drug use has risen.

■ 1.3. That’s the percentage of Americans who were drug addicted in 1914.

■ 1.3. That’s the percentage of Americans who are drug addicted now.

The numbers come from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, DEA agents and other drug warriors who are demanding an end to the drug war. Their statistics call to mind an old axiom: the definition of crazy is to continue doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

That said, it is not difficult to understand why the president — or anyone — might flinch at the notion of legalizing drugs. It is a big, revolutionary idea, an idea that would change the way things have been done since forever. If someone feels a need to pause before crossing that line, that’s understandable.

But let none of us do as the president did — hide behind a specious argument that offers no solution, no way forward and, most critically, no leadership.

Drug legalization is not the answer? OK, Mr. President, fair enough.

What is?

Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is insanity that this social war against drug use/abuse continues. The human consequences are twofold; those we lose to the addiction, and those we lose to the criminal justice system. If one takes away the "emotion" of changing the laws, then it makes a lot of sense. However, these laws make us "feel good" about a "false sense of security" therefore nothing changes.

Unfortunately there are a disproportionate number of African-American men in prison. Is it poverty? Educational options? Or blatant racism in the criminal justice system? Many would say a combination of all factors. Pitts has a point; incarcerating young African-American men in record numbers has done nothing to stem the tidal wave of drug addiction. It has however damaged the African-American community. It's about time we look to new options because the war on drugs hasn't been successful in any community.

If you do that at worst you will have 1.3. % who are addicts anyway no more the you do now and it take out all the hefty law enforcement and the dangers there of . If it don't work after a year Change it back what's to lose ? .

Poverty;
48 - That's how many years the war has raged.
46 million plus - Number of Americans living in poverty today.
16 trillion - The cost
6 - Percent Increase in the poverty rate last year
12.3 - Percent of persons in poverty in 1975
15.1 - Percent of persons in poverty in 2010

And yet somehow I do not see Pitts calling for an end to the war on poverty based on these similar disappointing statistics.

* Numbers compiled from various sources including the U.S. census bureau, New York Times, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

1. Substance abuse is having a devastating effect on our society.
2 We are pending billions and accomplishing little.
3. More of our resources should be spent on research, prevention, treatment.
4. What we are doing now is not working so lets look for creative solutions which might include alternatives to imprisonment, drug courts, harm reduction by decriminalizing some drugs etc etc., improving social services to young children at risk for addiction, etc etc

What are the repurcussions criminally speaking for poverty? Last time I checked if you violated the war on poverty (i.e. had the audacity to be poor) they didn't toss you in the hole for 25 to life. Try violating the war on drugs in a 3 strikes your out law state & see where they put you.

I grew up in relative poverty. We had holes in our shoes, hand-me-down clothes, and goofy looking glasses. Our cars often had smoky engines and bald tires. We didn't have food stamps, though Mom did draw state disability for several weeks after a surgery. Our rented dwellings were very humble and often shabby and we didn't eat fancy food. However, we did have:

Cleanliness
Moral training
Etiquette training
Encouragement to Read
Industriousness
Lots of fun
Much love for each other
Spiritual guidance
Chores and responsibility
Example of an awesome work ethic
Stern discipline
Swift punishment after bad behavior
Guidance in proper dress
Outings to free parks, galleries, and museums

Maybe the biggest thing is that poverty today means less adult supervision, less time to focus on the kids. More of a chance a kid will do something stupid because their friends are doing something stupid and nobody will be there to say, "hey kids THAT is stupid". Maybe it means not enough time to properly explain what is stupid.

Time was the cops would take you home, now there are more likely to be criminal charges for everything and poverty level means no option if the public defender really doesn't care a lot. Some public defenders do a very good job but there is no option for you if you are poverty stricken and get one that doesn't.

"Last time I checked if you violated the war on poverty (i.e. had the audacity to be poor) they didn't toss you in the hole for 25 to life". I don't know ayn, did you see where that woman on food stamps is getting charges filed. She thought she deserved the food stamps even after winning a million bucks in the lottery. Dang woman is giving the rest of those poor people a bad name, along with giving us Conservatives a poster child for welfare abuse.